Wilson v. KadienWilson v. Kadien
Initially, we note, and respondent concedes, that the finding that petitioner was guilty of engaging in a sexual offense is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and that part of the determination must be annulled (see Matter of Belot v Selsky, 56 AD3d 911, 912 [2008]; Matter of Hodge v Selsky, 53 AD3d 953, 954 [2008]). However, insofar as no loss of good time was imposed and petitioner has already served the penalty, the matter need not be remitted for a redetermination of the penalty (see Matter of Boyd v Goord, 50 AD3d 1414 [2008]). As for the charge of violating visiting procedures, petitioner pleaded guilty to this charge and is precluded from challenging the evidence upon which is it based (see Matter of Combes v Artus, 62 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2009]; Matter of Wilson v Dubray, 54 AD3d 1089, 1090 [2008]).1 Petitioner’s remaining contentions have not been preserved for our review.
Spain, J.P., Rose, Stein, McCarthy and Garry, JJ., concur.
Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by